Agree. I’d like to have a decent 356 for my daily . . . and no amount of work or upkeep would be too much . . . but insurance . . . parts . . . parking at the mall . . . safety . . . collector car price . . . all kinds of stuff . . . keep me from seriously hunting one down. Your observation . . . different people with differing thoughts . . . is thought provoking and insightful. Rocketman
You should look into a 356 as a “semi-daily driver,” it may not be as expensive as you think. I bet you could find a decent driver for around $20K.
Actually, a Stanley Steamer COULD keep up with traffic on the Interstate! The pathetic 2-wheel mechanical brakes would never be able to stop you in time to avoid a collision, but you could go extremely fast in a Stanley.
In the early part of the 20th Century (I don’t recall the exact year), the Stanley brothers took a stipped down “racing model” (essentially just a chassis with a minimal, streamlined body) to the sands of Ormond Beach, Florida. On its second or third run, the Stanley was verified to have exceeded 120 mph.
A year or so later, they doubled the pressure in the boiler and took it back to Ormond. Unfortunately, the primitive suspension could not deal with very high speeds on sand, the car became airborne, it tumbled end over end, and it crashed.
When the speedometer was found in the wreckage, it was stuck at 197 mph. Does that mean that the car actually went 197 mph? Nobody will every know, but those Stanleys were extremely fast–and they came with a lifetime warranty, as long as the owner brought the car to the Stanley brothers in Vermont for repair.
My only vehicle (not registered or insured as an antique) and daily driver is a 1955 Packard Patrician. I do have to make allowances for stopping distances but have power brakes, power steering, air conditioning, four-way power front seat, Packard 352 cu. in. V8, Packard Twin Ultramatic transmission, Packard Torsion-Level suspension. Have added multi-spark ignition to improve fuel consumption a little and an alternator because the generator wouldn’t keep up with the A/C and lights at night in city traffic. The car performs adequately in city driving and more than adequately on the highway, regularly making trips from Orlando to Miami and Jacksonvile and back at highway speeds. Parts are expensive (but no more so than many parts for modern high-end vehicles), fuel consumption is poor, by today’s standards, but once parts are obtained I can work on any part of this car. It is dependable if maintained, comfortable, has more useable space than most modern SUVs, looks like a car rather than a fish or a wedge, is still attractive (if well-worn) and I LIKE it. Most modern passenger cars have no frames under them, their bodies and interiors are constructed so as to self-destruct within ten years and, even though the mechanics, electrics and running gear in them have been improved, the average person cannot maintain or work on any of them and they’re tremendously costly to buy and to maintain if components do fail. Regardless of fuel consumption, this makes my car more economical to drive. Even if it requires a $2000 part, I don’t have to pay some remover and replacer (today’s mechanics) $90 an hour to work on it. Modern vehicles appear to be designed so that, when major components do start to fail, they’re too expensive to fix or maintain. Like nearly everything else we buy, today, they’re intended to be throw-aways. I suspect that, in 53 years, there won’t be enough of any of them left for anyone to be able to use, daily, should they want to.
Realdriver–Now that’s a car!
I agree with you, but of course, the fact that you own the finest car of its day has helped a lot. If you had purchased, let’s say, a 1952 Chevy 6–whose engine was lubricated only by the splash & drip method–it would not have been able to withstand the rigors of high speed driving for so many years. Superior engineering is largely responsible for the longevity of your car, coupled with the loving care that you have given it.
Congratulations on owning and enjoying such a fantastic car. I wish you many, many years of continued happy motoring with it.
19-- Alfa Romeo GTV/GT Jr./GTA/GTAm/Duetto/Spider/164/75/33
Pick one (or more if you please)
what was that song “you wore blue, i wore pink” it’s funny how we all remember the past. but lets look at it differently. lets say your budget for a new car is $40,000 you could buy and resto - mod a very nice car from the 30’s thru the 70’s. so you might want to look at it as what car you like. for $40,000 you could buy a new lexus, mercedes, bmw etc etc. suppose you like a 1930’s packard, i just found 2 in the trader. 1. 1937 110, 2 coupe $20000 2.1937 115, sedan (suiside doors) $16900. every major town has some sort of restoration guru, many have more than 1. lets allow $2500 for bodywork and paint. if you buy it right (solid body, nice paint, new chrome, maybe with some mechanical problems). then we’re going to install a 350 chevy crate motor, auto trans and rear end set up for modern hwy speeds - $9000. front disk brake conversion $1400. vintage heat and ac installed - $2000. interior $3500 (again buy it right) or a total of just under $40000. use the rest for stereo, power windows, fuzzy dice ect. so i guess what i’m saying is if you love the car and don’t mind a little bit of a hastle anything could be a daily driver. i’m currently looking at a 52 packard straight 8, 3 speed with overdrive. it will cruse all day at 80mph. good luck.
I wish I still had my 1965 Belvedere. I’d still be driving that. It ran on fumes. Didn’t have the money to fix it at the time, though.
For my daily driver I use a 73 68,000 mile sky blue Chrysler New Yorker, the car has only let me down once in 3 years due to a bad ignition connection, this took all of 15 minutes to diagnose and fix. My wife’s daily driver is a 1990 50,000 mile like new Mercury Grand Marquis. Both of these cars are perfectly usable, I just keep up with the maintenance. I’ll admit that my wife has an optional Range Rover in the driveway ~ she uses it to take the kids to the beach ~ she doesn’t want to get sand in the Mercury.
My real fun car is a 76 Jaguar, slightly less user friendly, I’m just rebuilding the rear IRS assembly. But still very usable I drove it 250 miles to the office and back every day for 6 months without problems.
Yeah, that can be a problem. Some WWII vintage fighters can’t be safely flown because the exotic alloys used (for light weight) are now dangerously weak. The Titanic sank because the steel and/or iron rivets became brittle in cold water. Some welded ships broke apart in cold waters because of brittleness. Steel parts subjected to much flexing over time might eventually fail from fatigue (aluminum will fail – Google Aloha Airlines 737). I would hope that modern metallurgy has improved somewhat, but there can certainly still be surprises over time.
Apparently Craig has a very different definition of “common” than we do.
In 1967, I had a 1947 Hudson Pick up Truck. It would handle freeway speeds in Southern California (70-80 mph back then) with no problems. The huge 6 cylinder flat head had 2 carbs and an O/D. The biggest mistake I made was selling it. It was a tough truck, built better than anything I’ve had since. I wanted A/C also and an automatic transmission. The problem with an older car, before 1940, is they just too expensive to replace should someone nail you.
I had a '66 Mercedes that had 4-wheel disc brakes.
The issue is not whether 4-wheel discs existed, but rather, whether they were “common”. They were definitely not common until a decade or more later.
Craig . . . I’m already on the endangered species list at my house . . . several cars . . . projects . . . parts . . . engines . . . tools . . . wifey says “just one more thing and I’ll . . .” (she never completes this part). I’m looking for a storage garage to put the stuff I don’t use/won’t throw out/projects in transition kinda things. Tell you what . . . going to Carlilse Import Car event soon . . . and I’ll be looking! Thanks for the encouragement. Rocketman
I would have to say cars from the 50’s.by 1957 we had developed bullet proof automatic transmissions,such as Chryslers famed Torqueflite,and Chevys turbo Hydramatic.
The Chrysler cars from the late 50’s also handled extremely well.
They do rev high on the freeway trying to keep up with the 75-80 mph everyone seems to be doing today,but I havent had a problem with it.
Regarding brakes, my 70’ Chevelle had 4 drum brakes. It had fine stopping power for such a large car, but after about two or three episodes of fairly hard braking, they would fade pretty bad. It also had no vacuum assist, so you were pretty much STANDING on the brakes just to slow the car down when they started to fade. That said, my friend had a 72’ Impala that had front discs. They worked great. The car would make a fine daily driver even today. (if it was still around) Mileage a little poor, but comfy, rode great, very smooth and torquey small block V8, reliable and had great heat and A/C. Would be a shame to expose a car like that to winter salt though. Currently my daily driver is 14 years old, has almost a quarter-million miles on it, and still only uses about a quart between 6,000 mile oil changes with Synthetic Mobil-1. (94 Chrysler)
the Chevy Corvette did starting in 1965, the Ford Mustang had front disc brakes as an option starting in 1965, front disc brakes is more the issue rather than 4 wheel disc brakes I think. Most ALL US manufacturers offered them (as an option on most models) starting in the mid 60’s, not sure if or when Rambler and Chrysler started them but by the late 60’s all had them avail.
FWIW, Chevy Chevelles first had disc brakes as an option in 1967 …
it is an easy conversion now to equip the 1st Chevelles (64-66) with the disc brakes, it just was not avail from the factory until 67
from a SAFETY stand point I would say 67 and later mainly because that is the 1st year all cars had to have the collapsing steering column. Seat belts can be added to any car and are effective (if installed correctly) but having a long metal pole being jammed at your chest from a front end accident is not a good idea. A lot of people that build “restifications” of earlier cars (55 Chevies for example) change the steering columns to a later design for that reason (plus to get the tilt feature).